Ignorance According to Sautrantika & Chittamatra Followers of Scripture

Chittamatra, like Sautrantika, is also divided into Chittamatra Followers of Scripture (lung-gi rjes-‘brang-gi sems-tsam-pa) and Chittamatra Followers of Reason (rigs-pa’i rjes-‘brang-gi mdo-sde-pa). Both base their teachings on certain Mahayana sutras such as The Descent into Lanka Sutra (Lan-kar bshegs-pa’i mdo, Skt. Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra) and The Sutra Unraveling What Was Intended (dGongs-pa nges-‘grel, Skt. Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra).

• The Followers of Scripture follow the presentation of the Chittamatra tenets found in Asanga’s late fourth-century texts
• The Followers of Reason, like the Sautrantika Followers of Reason, follow the presentation found in Dharmakirti’s sixth- or seventh-century Seven Treatises on Valid Cognition. 

Synonyms of Anti-Knowing

Asanga agrees with Vaibhashika and the Sautrantika Followers of Scripture that ignorance is the stupefying mental factor of anti-knowing and is synonymous with the deluminating mental factor (mi-shes-pa, ajñāna). Sthiramati gives other synonyms for anti-knowing in Extensive Explanation of a Commentary to (Maitreya’s) “Filigree for the Mahayana Sutras” (Theg-pa chen-po mdo-sde'i rgyan-gyi 'grel-ba rgya-cher bshad-pa, Skt. Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra-vṛttibhāṣya) (Derge Tengyur vol. 126, 98B-99A). “Filigree for the Mahayana Sutras” is one of the texts by Maitreya that Asanga brought back to this world from his visit to Maitreya’s pure land:

Among the names for anti-knowing, there are the synonyms: the anti-knowing mental factor, the mental factor of naivety, the deluminating mental factor, the blinder mental factor, the thick blinder mental factor, and so on.

(Tib.) ma rig pa la ming du ma rig pa dang, gti mug dang, mi shes pa dang, mun pa dang, mun nag ces bya ba la sogs pa'i ming gi rnam grangs du yod pa thams cad shes pa,

The Tibetan translation of the blinder mental factor (mun-pa, Skt. andhaka) literally means “darkener,” and that of the thick blinder mental factor (mun-nag, Skt. ghanāndhaka) literally means “darkener into blackness.”

Asanga does not provide a definition of naivety (gti-mug, Skt. moha), but we can glean its meaning from his definition of anti-naivety (gti-mug ma-yin-pa, Skt. amoha) in Anthology of Special Topics of Knowledge (Chos mngon-pa kun-las btus-pa, Skt. Abhidharmasamuccaya) (Gretil ed. 6, Derge Tengyur vol. 134, 48B-49A):

Suppose you ask what anti-naivety is. It is an illuminating mental factor and point-by-point consideration (of karmic cause and effect) that has come from the ripening (of karmic potential) or from (listening to) the scriptural texts, [Tib. adds: or from thinking (about their meaning)], or from a stable realization (of that meaning). It is the agent that provides the continuing underpinning support for not inaugurating negative behavior.

(Skt.) amohaḥ katamaḥ / vipākato vā āgamato vādhigamato vā jñānaṃ pratisaṃkhyā / duścaritāpravṛttisanniśrayadānakarmakaḥ /

(Tib.) /gti mug med pa gang zhe na/ rnam par smin pa las sam/ lung las sam/ bsam pa las sam/ rtogs pa las shes shing so sor brtags pa ste/ nyes bar spyod pa la mi 'jug pa'i rten byed pa'i las can no/

A continuing underpinning support (rten, Skt. sanniśraya) for something is like the ground that supports, and thus enables, a wheel to roll on it. 

Naivety, then, is the deluminating mental factor that prevents point-by-point consideration (so-sor brtags-pa, Skt. pratisaṃkhyā) of karmic cause and effect and that provides the continuing underpinning support for inaugurating destructive behavior. Naivety can also be translated as “close-mindedness.” Anti-knowing, then, as a synonym of naivety, brings on and accompanies all destructive actions of body, speech and mind. 

Disturbed and Non-Disturbed Anti-Knowing

As is the case with Vaibhashika and Sautrantika Followers of Scripture, there are two types of anti-knowing – disturbed (nyon-mongs-can, Skt. kliṣṭa) and non-disturbed (nyon-mongs-can ma-yin-pa, Skt. akliṣṭa). Both are synonymous with a deluminating mental factor that stupefies and blinds the mind, however only the disturbed variety is synonymous with naivety.   

• Disturbed anti-knowing is a disturbing mental factor that, as an emotional obscuration (nyon-sgrib, Skt. kleśāvaraṇa) and the first link of dependent arising, prevents liberation. It obscures the mind, preventing it from correctly knowing the four noble truths. 
• Non-disturbed anti-knowing is not a disturbing mental factor. Unlike in the Vaibhashika and Sautrantika Followers of Scripture systems, it is called a cognitive obscuration (shes-sgrib, Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa) in the Chittamatra Followers of reason system. Non-disturbed anti-knowing obscures the mind, preventing it from correctly knowing all phenomena and all their attributes. 

Mixed and Unmixed Anti-Knowing 

Disturbed anti-knowing itself has two varieties – mixed (‘dres-pa, Skt. veṇika) and unmixed (ma-‘dres-pa, Skt. aveṇika). Sthiramati explains them in An Explanatory Commentary on (Asanga’s) “Anthology of Special Topics of Knowledge” (mNgon-chos kun-nas btus-pa’i rnam-par bshad-pa, Skt. Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā) (Derge Tengyur 135, 188B). The Tibetan colophon attributes this text to Jinaputra Yashomitra. 

As for anti-knowing, there is (one type) that can be congruent with all of the disturbing mental factors, and there is also an unmixed (type). The unmixed type is the deluminating mental factor (that blinds the mind) about the (four noble) truths.

(Tib.) ma rig pa ni nyon mongs pa thams cad dang mtshungs par ldan pa dang ma 'dres pa yang yin no, ma 'dres pa ni bden pa rnams mi shes so

Mixed anti-knowing is the type of anti-knowing that is congruent (mtshungs-pa, Skt. saṃprayoga) with any of the other nine disturbing mental factors. Congruent factors refer to the consciousness and accompanying mental factors in any cognition. They share five features in common with each other. 

• Sautrantika and Chittamatra Followers of Reason accept reflexive awareness (rang-rig, Skt. svasaṃvedana) as also sharing five features with the consciousness and mental factors in a cognition. Reflexive awareness cognizes only the consciousness and mental factors in that cognition, not the object of the cognition, and accounts for our remembering the cognition.
• Sautrantika and Chittamatra Followers of Scripture do not accept reflexive awareness.

Unmixed anti-knowing is not accompanied by any other disturbing mental factor.

Congruence

In the Chittamatra system, these five congruent features are presented in a unique way, quite different from the Vaibhashika presentation, as features of “congruence through through cognitive agreement” (Skt. saṃpratipatti saṃprayoga). The Tibetan translates the term as “congruence through compatible cognition” (mthun-par rtogs-pas mtshungs-pa). The object that a mind (a primary consciousness) and its accompanying mental factors are focused on does not share congruence with them. Nevertheless, it arises simultaneously with all of them from a single tendency (sa-bon, Skt. bīja; literally, a seed) for the cognition as their shared natal source (rdzas, Skt. dravya). A natal source is like a womb for a baby.

• Thus, unlike Sautrantika Followers of Scripture, there is not just one tendency for anti-knowing, and all manifest instances of anti-knowing derive from that tendency as their common natal source.
• Each instance of manifest anti-knowing in a cognition derives from the individual tendency for that cognition as its natal source.
• Also unlike Sautrantika Followers of Scripture, the tendencies for each cognition, as noncongruent affecting variables, are tied to (imputed on) foundation consciousness (kun-shes rnam-shes, Skt. ālayavijñāna), not mind consciousness.
• The term “extending mental factor” (phra-rgyas, Skt. anuśaya) does not appear in Asanga’s Anthology.

Asanga explains the five features in Anthology (Gretil ed. 34, Derge Tengyur vol. 134, 72A):

What is congruence through cognitive agreement? [Tib. Suppose you ask what congruence through compatible cognition is.] 

[1] (The first is) the cognitive agreement of a mind and mental factors in being (focused) on a single focal (aspect) and not (each) on another and another. [Tib.: (The first is) the mind and mental factors having compatible cognition of a single focal (aspect).]

[2] (The second) congruence of cognitive agreement is (one that contains component) items that are not the same (item) but are further (items), in accord with the congruence being by means of (each component) being a different (kind of) item and not by means of (more than one) being the same (kind of) item. 

[3] The congruence is one that does not (contain) a pair of contradictory (component items) and not one that (contains) a pair of contradictory ones. [Tib.: There are pairs of compatible (component items) and not pairs of incompatible ones.]

[4] The congruence is one that contains pairs of (component) items with the same time-signature and not one that contains a pair of items of different time-signatures. 

[5] (The congruence is one that contains) pairs of (component) items on equal planes (of samsaric existence) or (equal) realms (on the planes of ethereal forms or formless beings), not (one that contains) a pair (of items on) unequal planes or realms. [Tib.: There are pairs of compatible plane or realm (component items), not incompatible plane or realm ones.]

(Skt.) saṃpratipatti saṃprayogaḥ katamaḥ / cittacaitasikānāmekasminnālambane ‘nyonyaṃ saṃpratipattiḥ / sa saṃpratipattisaṃprayogaḥ punaranekārthakaḥ / yathā parabhāvena saṃprayogaḥ na svabhāvena / aviruddhayoḥ saṃprayogo na viruddhayoḥ / sadṛśakālayoḥ saṃprayogo avisadṛśakālayoḥ sabhāgadhātubhūmikayoravisabhāga(dhātu)bhūmikayoḥ //

(Tib.)  /mthun par rtogs pas mtshungs par ldan pa gang zhe na/ sems dang sems las byung ba’i chos rnams dmigs pa gcig la mthun par rtogs pa’o/ /mthun par rtogs pas mtshungs par ldan pa de yang gzhan gyi dngos pos yin gyi bdag gi dngos pos ni ma yin no/ /mthun pa gnyis yin gyi mi mthun pa gnyis ni ma yin no/ /dus ‘dra ba gnyis yin gyi dus mi ‘dra ba gnyis ni ma yin no/ /mthun pa’i khams dang / sa pa gnyis yin gyi mi mthun pa’i khams dang / sa pa gnyis ni ma yin no/

In other words: 

1. The consciousness and accompanying mental factors in a cognition are all focused on the same object, which in Chittamatra is not an external object whose existence can be established in the moment before it is cognized, as Sautrantika asserts. But rather, they are all focused on the same mental aspect (rnam-pa, Skt. ākāra), which is somewhat like a mental hologram. The mental aspect arises from the same tendency for the cognition as do the consciousness and mental factors focused on it. 
2. Only one consciousness and one of each type of mental factor (such as only one feeling, not two) arise in a cognition. 
3. The mental factors in the cognition do not contain a pair that contradict each other, such as love and hatred. 
4. They all are of the same time-signature and not, for instance, presently happening eye consciousness accompanied by not-yet-happening love. 
5. They all need to be on the same plane of samsaric existence or same realm on the plane of ethereal forms or formless beings. They cannot be, for instance, a consciousness on the plane of sensory objects of desire accompanied by a level of concentration on the plane of ethereal forms.  

Note that because the object focused on in a cognition does not share these five features of congruence with the consciousness and mental factors focused on it, it does not need to share the same time-signature as they have. Therefore, a presently happening mind consciousness can remember a no-longer-happening pet that has died.  

Doctrinally Based and Automatically Arising Anti-Knowing

Unlike the assertion of the Vaibhashikas and the Sautrantika Followers of Scripture that anti-knowing is only doctrinally based (kun-tu brtags-pa’i ma-rig-pa, Skt. parikalpitāvidyā), Chittamatra Followers of Scripture assert that anti-knowing has both doctrinally based and automatically arising (lhan-cig skyes-pa’i ma-rig-pa, Skt. sahajāvidyā) types. 

Vasubandhu explains in his Chittamatra text, Discussion of the Five Aggregate Factors (Phung-po lnga rab-tu byed-pa, Skt. Pañcaskandha-prakaraṇa) (Gretil. 59, Derge Tengyur vol. 136, 13B):

Suppose you ask what anti-knowing is. It is a deluminating mental factor (that blinds the mind) about karmic impulses and (their) results, the (four noble) truths and the (Three) Precious Gems. Further, there are automatically arising and doctrinally based (types of it).

(Skt.) avidyā katamā / karmaphalasatyaratnānāmajñānam / sā punaḥ sahajā parikalpitā ca // 

(Tib.) ma rig pa gang zhe na/ las dang 'bras bu dang bden pa dang / dkon mchog rnams mi shes pa de/ de yang lhan cig skyes pa dang / kun tu brtags pa'o/ /

Sthiramati explains the two types of anti-knowing in Detailed Explanation of (Vasubandhu’s) “Discussion of the Five Aggregate Factors” (Phung-po lnga’i rab-tu byed-pa bye-brag-tu bshad-pa, Skt. Pañcaskandha-prakaraṇa-vibhāṣya) (Derge Tengyur vol. 136, 218A-B): 

Automatically arising anti-knowing is unmixed (anti-knowing) not having congruence with any other disturbing mental factor. Doctrinally based (anti-knowing) has congruence with indecisive wavering, a distorted view, holding deluded morality or conduct as supreme, and so on.

The deluminating mental factor (that blinds the mind) about karmic impulses is the deluminating mental factor (that blinds the mind) about there being meritorious, non-meritorious and unwavering (types of karmic impulses). It is an anti-apprehending and an anti-comprehending (of them). This is automatically arising anti-knowing.

The anti-knowing that is congruent with indecisive wavering about the existence of meritorious, non-meritorious and unwavering karmic impulses; with the repudiation that says, “There are no such things as meritorious, non-meritorious and unwavering karmic impulses”; with the distinguishing of meritorious (karmic impulses) as non-meritorious ones; with a distinguishing of non-meritorious (karmic impulses) as meritorious ones such as when slaughtering a cow, cremating it and so on; and with (the urging that is the karmic impulse for) slaughtering a cow and cremating it; and with indecisive wavering and (thinking with) distorted views – that is the doctrinally based (variety).

(Tib.) lhan cig skyes pa ni nyon mongs pa gzhan dang mtshungs par ldan pa ma yin gyi ma 'dres pa'o/ /kun brtags pa ni the tshom dang / log par lta ba dang / tshul khrims dang brtul zhugs mchog tu 'dzin pa la sogs pa'i nyon mongs pa dang mtshungs par ldan pa'o/  /las mi shes pa ni bsod nams dang bsod nams ma yin pa dang / me g.yo ba'i las yod par mi shes pa gang yin pa ste/ mi rtogs pa dang / khong du mi chud pa'o/ /'di ni lhan cig skyes pa'i ma rig pa'o/ /bsod nams dang bsod nams ma yin pa dang / mi g.yo ba'i las yod pa nyid la the tshom za ba'am/ bsod nams dang bsod nams ma yin pa dang mi g.yo ba'i las med do zhes skur pa 'debs pa dang / bsod nams la bsod nams ma yin par 'du shes pa rnams/ phyugs gsod cing mer 'jug pa la sogs pa byed pa dang / bsod nams ma yin pa la bsod nams su 'du shes pa rnams phyugs gsod cing mer 'jug par byed pa dang / the tshom za ba dang / log par lta ba dang mtshungs par ldan pa'i ma rig pa gang yin pa de ni/ kun du brtags pa'o/ 

Concerning the three types of karmic impulses mentioned:

• Meritorious karmic impulses (bsod-nams-kyi las, Skt. puṇyakarma) are karmic impulses for constructive actions that will ripen into a rebirth in one of the three higher rebirth states on the plane of sensory objects of desire. 
• Non-meritorious karmic impulses (bsod-nams min-pa’i las, Skt. apuṇyakarma) are karmic impulses for destructive actions that will ripen into a rebirth in one of the three lower rebirth states on the plane of sensory objects of desire. 
• Unwavering karmic impulses (mi-g.yo-ba’i las, Skt. aniñjakarma) are karmic impulses for constructive actions that will ripen into a rebirth on either the plane of ethereal forms or the plane of formless beings. 

Automatically arising anti-knowing, by stupefying and blinding the mind, prevents the mental factor of discriminating (shes-rab, prajñā) from correctly differentiating meritorious, non-meritorious and unwavering karmic impulses from each other. Similarly, it prevents correctly differentiating the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths from distorted understandings of them, and the Three Precious Gems from non-ultimate sources of refuge. 

Doctrinally based anti-knowing derives from having learned and accepted as correct the assertions of an Indian non-Buddhist tenet system concerning what suffering, its origin (which includes karmic impulses), its cessation and the pathway mind leading to its cesstion are. Based on belief that its assetions about these four are true, disturbing mental factors arise, such as indecisive wavering about the Buddhist assertions of these four topics, the distorted view that repudiates (skur-‘debs, Skt. apavāda) the Buddhist views, and so on. The anti-knowing mixed with these disturbing mental factors stupefies and blinds the mind in such cognitions, and prevents the mental factor of discriminating from correctly differentiating what is true from what is false.   

Doctrinally Based Anti-Knowing on the Three Planes of Compulsive Existence

Doctrinally based anti-knowing is congruent with the different disturbing mental factors on the three planes of compulsive existence. Asanga states, Anthology (Gretil ed. 7, Derge 49A-B):

Suppose you ask what (doctrinally based) anti-knowing is. It is the deluminating mental factor (that occurs) on the three planes of compulsive existence. It is the agent (performing the function) of providing the continuing underpinning support for [1] distorted certainty about phenomena because of indecisive wavering (on the plane of sensory objects of desire) and for [2] the arising of defiling mental factors (on the planes of ethereal forms and formless beings). 

(Skt.) avidyā katamā / traidhātukamajñānam / dharmeṣu mithyāniścayavicikitsātsaṃkleśotpattisanniśrayadānakarmikā // 

(Tib.) ma rig pa gang zhe na/ khams gsum pa'i mi shes pa ste/ chos rnams la log par nges pa dang / the tshom dang / kun nas nyon mongs pa 'byung ba'i rten byed pa'i las can no/ 

Defiling mental factors (kun-nas nyon-mongs-pa, Skt. saṃkleśa) are synonymous with disturbing mental factors. Often contrasted with purifying mental factors, they figuratively soil the mind.

Sthiramati explains in An Explanatory Commentary on (Asanga’s) “Anthology” (Derge 124A): 

As for “distorted certainty,” because it is a reversed, deluminating cognizing (of phenomena), it is deluminating cognizing (of them) in a reversed way. As for “indecisive wavering,” it entertains doubts. As for “the arising of defiling mental factors,” it is the (true origin) of all disturbing mental factors – longing desire and so on. It is “the continuing underpinning support” (for that) because, in stupefying, it gives rise to all disturbing mental factors. 

(Tib.) log par nges pa ni phyin ci log gi shes pas phyin ci log tu shes pa'o, the tshom ni som nyi za ba'o, kun nas nyon mongs pas byung ba ni 'dod chags la sogs pa'i nyon mongs pa kun 'byung ba'o, de'i rten ni rmongs pa la nyon mongs pa thams cad 'byung ba'i phyir ro.

Jinaputra Yashomitra elaborates in his Commentary on (Asanga’s) “Anthology of Special Topics of Knowledge” (Chos mngon-pa kun-las btus-pa’i bshad pa, Skt. Abhidharmasamuccayabhāṣyā) (Gretil ed. 32, Derge Tengyur vol. 135, 24A): 

Anti-knowing makes sentient beings on (the three planes of) compulsive existence befuddled [Tib. stupefied]. (This befuddling mental factor comes) from those obscured by it lacking thorough illuminating cognition concerning the actual existence of the endpoint of previous (lives), the endpoint of further (lives), and the endpoint of (the present life in between in) the middle. Thus, because of this, it causes indecisive wavering (wondering) whether I really existed in the past course of time or perhaps I didn’t (exist), and so on like this.

(Skt.) avidyā bhave sattvān saṃmohayati, tadāvṛtteḥ, pūrvāntāparāntamadhyāntānāṃ yathābhūtāparijñānāt / yata evaṃ vicikitsati - kiṃ nvahamabhūvamati[te] 'dhvanyāhosvinnābhūvamityevamādi

(Tib.) /ma rig pa ni srid pa la sems can rnams rmongs par byed ces bya ba ni des bsgribs pa rnams sngon gyi mtha' dang phyi ma'i mtha' dang bar gyi mtha' yang dag pa ji lta ba bzhin du yongs su mi shes pa'i phyir te/ 'di ltar ci bdag 'das pa'i dus na byung ba zhig gam/ 'on te ma byung ba zhig snyam pa la sogs pa de ltar the tshom za ba'o/

The Sanskrit term “saṃmohayati,” “makes befuddled,” is a causative verb that derives from the same root as the term “befuddling mental factor (Skt saṃmoha). The Tibetan translates “saṃmohayati” with the synonym “rmong-par byed, “stupefies.” 

On the plane of sensory objects of desire (the Desire Realm), this stupefaction concerns the existence of past and future lives, in which case it gives rise to indecisive wavering concerning the existence of oneself as an atman in past and future lives. This indecision gives rise to taking a transitory network to exist as one of two extremes (mthar-‘dzin-pa, Skt. antagrahadṛṣṭi) – either the extreme that the atman is static and continues from past to future lives without any change, or the extreme that it only exists in this lifetime and that there are no such things as past and future lives. 

Recall that Sthiramati, in the passage from Detailed Explanation of (Vasubandhu’s) “Discussion” quoted above, had explained that “doctrinally based (anti-knowing) has congruence with indecisive wavering, a distorted view, holding deluded morality or conduct as supreme, and so on.” His passage expands on Asanga’s statement in An Anthology, also quoted above, that “(Anti-knowing is) the agent (performing the function) of providing the continuing underpinning support for distorted ascertainment about phenomena because of indecisive wavering (on the plane of sensory objects of desire).” 

A distorted view, holding deluded morality or conduct as supreme, taking (the transitory network) to exist as one of the two extremes, and a cognizing with a disturbed view toward a transitory network are the five disturbing mental factors that cognize with a view. Cognizing with a view, these five ascertain their object – they cognize it with certainty, having made an assessment (rtog-pa, Skt. tīraṇā) of it – and they all are distorted. Thus, the two passages correlate with each other.

Sthiramati, Explanatory Commentary on (Asanga’s) “Anthology” (Gretil 79, Derge 217B), gives further detail about the defiling mental factors that soil a mind that is absorbed in one of the dhyana (bsam-gtan, Skt. dhyāna) levels of mental stability on the planes of ethereal forms and of formless beings. The defiling mental factors here are the four obscured unspecified disturbing mental factors of thirsting, a distorted view, arrogance and anti-knowing. On these two upper planes, all disturbing mental factors are obscured unspecified phenomena (bsgribs-pa’i lung ma-bstan, Skt. nivṛtāvyākṛta) – nonstatic phenomena not specified by Buddha as being either destructive or constructive and which obscure the mind because of being congruent with anti-knowing. 

There (on those upper planes of existence), [1] (one’s mind) is defiled by thirsting [Tib. clinging], (which is) a defiling mental factor toward a taste (that comes) from (experiencing) a taste of the bliss of a sense of fitness. [2] (One’s mind) is defiled by (distorted) views, by having meditated with further and further (distorted) views (that come) because, having become stable in a dhyana level of mental stability, (the distorted certainty gained) gives rise to (further and further distorted) views such as the misconception that there is a limit to the past. [3] (One’s mind) is defiled by arrogance, by having meditated with further and further arrogance (that comes) from (having experienced a steady) increase in the gain of special attributes (such as extrasensory powers) by it (by the attainment of higher dhyanas). [4] (One’s mind) is defiled by anti-knowing, by having meditated with further and further indecisive waverings (that come) because, when someone, wishing for liberation by means of (a method that is) not a penetration into the real nature (of things), has a gain of special attributes (such as extrasensory powers), indecisive wavering arises (wondering), “Is this liberation or not liberation?” 

(Skt.) tatra tṛṣṇayāsvādasaṃkleśena saṃkliśyate, prasrabdhisukhāsvādāt / dṛṣṭyā dṛṣṭyuttaradhyāyitayā saṃkliśyate, dhyānaṃ niścitya pūrvāntakalpādidṛṣṭisamutthāpanāt / mānena mānottara dhyāyitayā saṃkliśyate, tena viśeṣādhigamenonnatigamanāt / avidyayā vicikitsottaradhyāyitayā saṃkliśyate, tattvā prativedhena mokṣakāmasya tasminviśeṣādhigame mokṣo na mokṣa iti vicikitsotpādanāt //

(Tib.) de la sred pas ni ro myang ba'i kun nas nyon mongs pas kun nas nyon mongs so, shin tu sbyong ba'i bde ba'i ro myong bar byed pa'i phyir ro, lta bas ni lta ba'i shas che ba'i bsam gtan pa nyid kyis kun nas nyon mongs so, bsam gtan la brten nas sngon gyi mtha' la rtog pa la sogs pa'i lta ba kun nas slong ba'i phyir ro, nga rgyal gyis ni nga rgyal gyi shas che ba'i bsam gtan pa nyid kyis kun nas nyon mongs pa'o, des khyad par thob nas khengs par 'gyur ba'i phyir ro, ma rig pas ni the tsom gyi shas che ba'i bsam gtan pa nyid kyis kun nas nyon mongs so, de kho na ma gtogs pas thar par 'dod pa khyad par de thob pa la thar pa yin nam ma yin snyam du the tsom skye ba'i phyir ro/

Minds on the planes of ethereal forms and of formless beings are deeply absorbed in the various levels of dhyana mental stability that go beyond the attainment of shamatha (zhi-gnas, Skt. śamathā), a stilled and settled state of mind. However, when anti-knowing arises congruent with these levels of absorbed concentration, that anti-knowing is the agent giving rise to these levels of dhyana mental stability being defiled. They are defiled by the defiling mental factors of thirsting (a strong type of attachment), distorted views, arrogance and anti-knowing. They cannot be defiled by the defiling mental factor of hostility because here is no hostility or anger on these two higher planes of existence.

• Having attained shamatha on the way to achieving one of these dhyanas, we gain a taste of the exhilarating bliss of a sense of fitness (shin-sbyangs, Skt. praśrabdhi). But when clinging to that taste and thirsting not to be parted from it arise, the anti-knowing accompanying this defiling mental factor stupefies the mind, preventing it from correctly discriminating that this bliss is not true happiness. It is an example of true suffering. 
• Having achieved one of these dhyanas, we gain the special attainment of knowing our own and others’ past lives, but just up to a certain number of past lives. But if we have learned and accepted the distorted view of a creator who created our mental continuums at that point, which is as far back as we can remember, we develop the further distorted view of taking this distorted view of a creator as supreme. The anti-knowing accompanying this defiling mental factor stupefies the mind, preventing it from correctly discriminating that creation by an omnipotent creator is not the true origin of suffering.
• Having achieved one of these dhyanas, we gain increasingly more special attributes, such as increasingly more extensive extrasensory and extraphysical abilities. When we develop arrogance at having these abilities, we can develop further types of arrogance from that, such as the egotistic arrogance of thinking, “What a great meditator I am.” The anti-knowing accompanying this defiling mental factor stupefies the mind, preventing it from correctly discriminating that this arrogance is a true origin of suffering.
• Having achieved one of the higher dhyanas, having surpassed the previous level of dhyana, we experience the anti-knowing preventing us from knowing that pursuing this path is not the true path to liberation. From this, we develop further types of indecisive wavering, such as wondering whether or not our state of meditative absorption is liberation. The anti-knowing accompanying this defiling mental factor stupefies the mind, preventing it from correctly discriminating that this state of dhyana is not a true cessation of suffering and its causes.  

The Mental Factor of Discriminating

Chittamatra Followers of Scripture agree with Vaibhashika and Sautrantika Followers of Scripture that anti-knowing cannot be a “bad” type of discriminating. This is because Asanga, Anthology (Gretil ed. 6, Derge 48B), defines cognizing with a mental factor of discriminating as turning back any doubts, and, as we have seen, anti-knowing leads to the indecisive wavering of having doubts. Therefore, anti-knowing and discriminating are two separate, individual mental factors.

Suppose you ask what (the mental factor of) discriminating is. It is (a mental factor that is) a differentiating of phenomena that are items that have in fact been evaluated.  It is the agent for turning back doubts.

(Skt.) prajñā katamā / upaparīkṣya eva vastuni dharmāṇāṃ pravicayaḥ / saṃśayavyāvarttanakarmikā // 

(Tib.) / shes rab gang zhe na/ brtag pa nyid kyi dngos po'i chos rnams la rab tu rnam pa 'byed pa ste/ som nyi bzlog pa'i las can no/

As for what disturbed discriminating cognizing is, Sthiramati defines it in Detailed Explanation of (Vasubandhu’s) “Discussion” (Derge 221A):

Suppose you ask what (the mental factor of) disturbed discriminating is. When (the mind) has not become stupefied, then the distinguishing of “there being no such thing as an atman” as “there being such a thing as an atman” would not come about. Thus, it is disturbed (discriminating) because of being congruent with naivety and being reversed.  

(Tib.) /shes rab nyon mongs pa can gang yin pa'o zhes bya ba ni rmongs par ma gyur na/ bdag med pa la bdag tu 'du shes par mi 'gyur te/ de'i phyir gti mug dang mtshungs par ldan pa dang phyin ci log tu gyur ba'i phyir nyon mongs pa can no/ 

As in the Vaibhashika system, the mental factor of discriminating may either be with or without a view. When is with a view, it is preceded by an evaluation (brtag-pa-nyid, Skt. upaparīkṣya) of two possibilities about an object, such as about an atman as defined in one of the non-Buddhist Indian tenet systems. In this case, the evaluation comes to a decisive assessment about whether there is such a thing as an atman defined like that. That decision may or may not be correct. 

• When the decision is correct (namely, that there is no such thing as an atman), the decisiveness is based on holding a correct view of the self. Correct discriminating is discriminating with a correct view and is not accompanied by anti-knowing. 
• When the decision is incorrect (namely, that there is such a thing as an atman), the decisiveness is based on holding the distorted view of one of the non-Buddhist Indian tenet systems. Disturbed discriminating is discriminating with a distorted view and is accompanied by anti-knowing. 

As is the case in the Vaibhashika system, the mental factor of cognizing with a distorted view is a type of so-called “bad” discriminating. The anti-knowing congruent with it stupefies the mind such that it negatively affects the decisiveness of the discriminating and brings on indecisive wavering. Since anti-knowing negatively affects discriminating, the two must be separate mental factors. 

In summary, Vaibhashika and both Sautrantika and Chittamatra Followers of Scripture agree that ignorance is anti-knowing – a mental factor that does not, by its own power, cognize with a distorted view. It simply stupefies the mind, preventing it from discriminating the four noble truths with a correct view Therefore, in these three pre-Dharmakirti systems, ignorance is not a misknowing of the four noble truths.